Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunder Sham Arora vs State Of Punjab & Others on 13 December, 2013
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh
CWP No.8862 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.8862 of 2013
Date of decision: 13.12.2013
Sunder Sham Arora .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner claims a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay revised pension and other pensionery benefits such as Dearness Allowance, Old Age Allowance, Domestic Allowance and amount in lieu of Travel Concession.
The petitioner retired as District & Sessions Judge on 31.10.2001 after putting more than 33 years of service. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was being paid salary of Rs.23,350/- in the old selection grade of Rs.18750-400-19150-450-21850-500-22850 in the master scale going up to Rs.24,850/-. The petitioner was thus being paid pension at the rate of Rs.11,675/- per month.
Kumar Vimal 2013.12.13 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8862 of 2013 2
The pay scales of the Judicial Officers were revised as per the orders of the Supreme Court on the recommendations of Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.) Committee w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The petitioner was placed in the selection grade of Rs.57700-70290 in the master pay scale going up to Rs.76,450/-. The State Government has issued a circular on 05.07.2011 granting necessary pension and other pensioner benefits in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to 50% of pension in the new scale amounting to Rs.35,915/-. The petitioner relies upon Master Pay Scale, contained in Annexure P-4, to assert that the revised pay is Rs.71,830/- corresponding to the basic pay of Rs.23,350/- .
The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being granted pension at the rate of Rs.35,915/- corresponding to his revised pay. The petitioner also claims that he has attained the age of 70 years and thus, he is entitled to Old Age pension in terms of the recommendations of Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.) Committee report as well as one month's pension in lieu of Travel Concession in a block of two years.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the District Treasury Officer, it is pointed out that the pension payable to the petitioner has been revised in the pay scale of Rs.70290-1540-76450. In the calculation chart appended therewith, the arrears of pension amounting to Rs.10,44,794/- have been paid to the petitioner on 28.06.2013.
A perusal of the reply filed on behalf of the High Court shows that the basic pension of the petitioner was revised from Rs.28850/- to Rs.35,145/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
Kumar Vimal 2013.12.13 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8862 of 2013 3
The first grievance of the petitioner is that his revised pension should be Rs.35,915/-, but the same has been fixed at Rs.35,145/-. Therefore, he is entitled to the difference of arrears. The grievance is also that he has not been paid allowances since August, 2013; arrears in lieu of Leave Travel as also the Old Age allowance.
A perusal of the Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.) Committee's report dated 17.7.2009 shows that the pension is to be granted at 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement. The relevant extract from Part -V of the Report reads as under:
"PENSION STRUCTURE FOR PAST PENSIONERS I.E. WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO 01.01.2006
31. The recommendations off the First National Judicial Pay Commission with respect to past pensioners are given in paragraph 23.18 which are as under:-
(1) The Revised Pension of the Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time.
(2) There should not be any ceiling limit on the maximum pension payable.
(3) The pensioners should be given the benefit of full neutralization of the cost of living in the same scale as is being extended to the serving Judicial Officers.
(4) A cash payment of Rs.1250/- per month as 'Domestic Help Allowance' to every retired Judicial Officer, which would be paid upon producing a certificate to that effect.
xxx xxx xxx 31(a) In respect to recommendations Nos.1, 2 & 3, no change is called for and the same shall continue.Kumar Vimal 2013.12.13 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8862 of 2013 4
31(b) With respect to recommendation No.4 regarding cash payment of Rs.1250/- p.m. as domestic help allowance to retired judicial officer, this deserves to be increased from Rs.1250/- to Rs.2500/- per month to retired judicial officers. It is for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to consider and give Domestic Help Allowance to Family Pensioners and it is reasonable to pay Rs.1000/- to family pensioners."
The relevant extract from the circular issued on 15.12.2011 in pursuance of the acceptance of the report of the Justice E. Padmanabhan is as under:
"ANNEXURE - A TABEL INDICATING REVISED PENSION BASED ON REVISED MASTER PAY SCALE FOR POSTS CARRYING PRESENT SCALES.
Sr. Service Pay scale Revised Pension = Family
No. w.e.f. Pay Scale 50% of Pension =
01.01.1996 w.e.f. sum of 30% of
01.01.2006 min. of sum of
pay scales min. of
pay
scales.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
B. Punjab Superior Judicial Service.
- - - - - -
(iii) Super Rs.22850- Rs.70290- Rs.35145/- Rs.21087/-
Time 500-24850 1540-76450
Scale (for 10% of (for 10% of
the posts in the posts in
the cadre as the cadre as
District District
Judge with Judge with
minimum of minimum of
3 years 3 years
service in service in
Selection selection
Grade) grade)
Thus, the pension of the Petitioner has been correctly fixed. The master grade relied upon by the Petitioner does not show that it relates to Kumar Vimal 2013.12.13 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8862 of 2013 5 pension as well. It may be relevant for the purpose of pay fixation. The pension payable to the petitioner is 50% of the minimum of pay scale.
The issue in respect of Old Age allowance and Travel Concession has been dealt with by this Division Bench in CWP No.16495 of 2013 titled 'Pawan Kumar Garg Vs. State of Punjab & others' decided on 10.11.2013. This Court has relied upon the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.10554 of 2012 titled 'M.S.Chawla Vs. State of Punjab & others' decided on 12.03.2013.
The grant of domestic allowance is part of circular dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-5). The non-payment of such allowance has not been explained.
For the reasons recorded in M.S.Chawla's case (supra) and Pawan Kumar Garg's case (supra), the present writ petition in respect of claim of Old Age allowance and Travel Concession is allowed in the same terms as the aforesaid writ petitions, whereas, the claim of the Domestic Allowance is directed to be paid, if already not paid, in terms of the circular of the State Government.
The necessary benefits be paid to the petitioner within three months. If any deduction has been made, the amount will be restored as well within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
December 13 , 2013 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE
Kumar Vimal
2013.12.13 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh